Electricity Daily

Could New EPA Rules Harm Health?

Could the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed tough new standards
for ozone and small particulates actually cause greater harm than benefit
to public health? In comments on the proposals,
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think-tank,
raises that possibility. "All regulations impose costs, economic and otherwise,"
says CEI. "In this instance, the EPA has failed to consider whether the proposed
standard may actually increase mortality due to reductions in disposable
income that compliance efforts may produce."

As have other critics, CEI zeros in on the alleged health benefits of the
new standard for particulate matter, which
would regulate particulates as small as 2.5 microns. The proposal, notes
CEI, "is based upon two studies that allegedly document a weak association
between current levels of particulate matter and mortality. [S]uch weak
associations are rarely the basis for federal rulemaking, nor should they
be."

The two studies EPA cites report risk factors of 1.17 and 1.26. In other
words, the researchers observed a 17 percent increase in risk in one study
and 26 percent in the other. These factors, notes CEI, "are well below those
that are generally accepted to demonstrate a potential cause-and-effect link
between an environmental factor and mortality." Most scientific professionals
are highly skeptical of studies that purport to demonstrate a cause-and-effect
link based on such a weak association. According to Dr. Lynn Rosenberg of
the Boston University School of Medicine, "A relative risk of 1.3 (this is
a 30 percent increase in risk) is, in epidemiological terms, virtually
indistinguishable from a risk of 1.0 (that is, no increase in risk)."

With risks of such tiny magnitude, says CEI, it is plausible that the economic
harm caused by the new rules would overwhelm any public health benefits.
"In the area of public health protection," says CEI, "there is always a risk
that regulations designed to increase protection of human health may have
the opposite effect. In particular, regulations that diminish economic growth
and disposable income can have negative consequences for public health. There
is a strong correlation between incomes and health status. Across and within
populations, as incomes rise, health improves and as incomes fall, mortality
and morbidity increase."

CEI notes that academic studies generally suggest that "an economic loss
to the economy of approximately $5 million to $10 million will result in
an additional premature fatality." Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has
made the same point in work he published before President Clinton named him
to the court. So, says CEI, the EPA should take a closer look at unintended
consequences "including an increase in mortality caused by excessive regulatory
expenditures" before it issues a final rule. "Indeed," argues the think-tank,
"it would be a violation of the agency's implicit obligation to safeguard
human health were such potential impacts not to be considered."